Truck Month Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Bob Dylan Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Grocery The Baby Store Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Cash Back Offer LoveandFriendship LoveandFriendship LoveandFriendship  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Shop Now

Format: Paperback|Change
Price:$18.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on October 23, 2006
From one review:

"The addition of chlorine, a known poison is one of the most unpalatable aspects of this sweetener opines Dr. Hull. Pointing out differences between chlorine occurring naturally with the man made version in sucralose, she leaves no stone unturned in explaining the potential harmful effects of ingesting a compound containing man made chlorine."

There's no such thing as "man-made" chlorine. Chlorine is an element.

From another review:

"Splenda is chlorine-based, the same as the basis of DDT."

Picture, if you will, two highly dangerous substances: first, the metallic element sodium, so violently reactive it ignites when exposed to air. The second: chlorine, a deadly gas. Put the two together, add a little energy, and POOF! What do you get? Sodium chloride, or common table salt, not only not poisonous, but a necessity of life.

Hull's argument that Splenda is unsafe because of its reliance on chlorine betrays a lack of understanding of high school chemistry. However, this isn't surprising: "Dr." Hull obtained her "Doctorate" from "Clayton College Of Natural Health", a distance learning college that is only accredited by, in their website's own words, "the American Association of Drugless Practitioners and the American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board. These are private, professional associations that offer accreditation in naturopathy and other areas of natural health. Both are private accrediting associations designed to meet the needs of non-traditional education and are not affiliated with any government agency." In short, it's not recognized by any educational accreditation organization. The only "Doctor of Nutrition" program they offer is "Doctor of Philosophy in Holistic Nutrition", whose courses include such titles as "Cancer: Prevention and Politics" and "Nutritional Healing: Ayurvedic Perspectives", with the only chemistry involved "Chemistry Fundamentals". I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if her Masters, if not her Bachelor degree too, came from this outfit. Ironically, the web site for her aspartame book claims "Dr. Janet Hull's aspartame expertise is based on her professional background." Well, that's enough reason not to read the book right there. I should also mention that this "college" teaches courses in "iridology", the claim that the state of health of an individual can be determined by the patterns of their iris. It is also "accredited" by an iridology association. To quote from Wikipedia: "It has been pointed that the premise of iridology is at odds with the notion that the iris does not undergo changes in an individual's life. Iris texture is a phenotypical feature which develops during gestation and remains unchanged since birth. There is no evidence for changes in the iris pattern other than variations in pigmentation in the first year of life, eventual freckles and variations caused by glaucoma treatment. This stability of iris structures is at the foundation of iris recognition for identification purposes.... Scientific research into iridology has shown mostly, but not entirely, negative results. However, all double blinded, rigorous tests of iridology have failed to find any statistical significance to iridology.... In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association... three iridologists incorrectly identified kidney disease in photographs of irises and often disagreed with each other. The researchers concluded: 'iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance.'" In other words, "Dr." Hull's "college" is accredited by, and teaches the beliefs of, quacks.

For the reviewer who couldn't figure out whether she was a firefighter or a doctor, according to her official bio she's both. And so much more: " She holds a Doctorate in Nutrition, a Master's Degree in Environmental Science, is an international geographer and geologist, a former university professor, firefighter and Hazardous Waste Specialist and Emergency Responder. She is a Licensed Certified Nutritionist, certified fitness professional, author and aspartame victim."

Folks, I would recommend taking this information along with that of several other reviewers' (short book, half of it recycling material on aspartame from her last book, etc) and decide to spend your money elsewhere. There are other books written by competent, qualified researchers with bona fide credentials that document the health effects of aspartame. And it would seem that the only one warning about Splenda would be "Dr." Hull, at least for now (although, unlike aspartame, a lot of positive research exists on Splenda). And don't forget to laugh the next time someone tells you to avoid Splenda because it "has chlorine it it" (I've seen one other unqualifed website make that argument). The chlorine is a part of the sucralose molecule, just as it is in table salt, and it's the chemical properties of the molecule that is the question.
1616 comments|177 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 4, 2007
This book and others like it posit that in the case of Splenda, the government is colluding with big industry to put an unsafe product on the market to line the pockets of manufacturers and politicians. That may well be true but it's funny to say that and ignore what's obvious to anyone who's studied the ag industry in the US:

1) The sugar industry in the US is huge. It receives a subsidy that costs US taxpayers/consumers approximately $2 billion annually (see the Cato Institute report, "A Sweet Deal for the Sugar Industry"). This subsidy--like many of the other farm subsidies--was originally intended to help small farmers but now (acc. to the GAO) goes primarily to large, corporate farms. To make sure this subsidy stays sacrosanct, the sugar industry dolls out hefty sums of money every campaign cycle. (For a more detailed description of the sugar industry's campaign donations, visit the Open Secrets website.)

2) The sugar industry is taking a big hit as more people learn about the dangers of a high-sugar diet and the Splenda craze hits full swing

3) The sugar industry is fighting back with a PR blitz to improve its image with consumers (a la the tobacco industry and the oil companies) at the same time it is attacking the image of its competitors and fighting health experts: "In a legendary battle two years ago, the industry tried without success to stop the World Health Organization from recommending people consume no more than 10 percent of their daily calories from added sugars." (Quoted in the Sacramento Bee article from July '05).

4) Books like Dr. Hull's come out with scary but scientifically-questionable claims about sugar's chief competitor

I'm not questioning Dr. Hull's motives, just stating that it's worth taking everything in this debate with a grain of salt. Exceptions do exist, e.g. Ralph Nader, but for the most part these days it seems like everyone claiming to be the little guy fighting the big guy is actually being paid by the big guy's equally big competitor.
0Comment|42 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 9, 2005
Buy this book and be afraid... nothing is safe. This book is supposed to be about Splenda - unsafe according to the author, safe according to regulators worldwide - but more than half of the book is what she wrote about Aspartame (I know because I read the other book). What a rip off!!

Now I'm no scientist but I know that these ingredients are completely different but not so according to the writer. But then she makes loads of wacky connections in this book so one big one makes little difference.

This book contains less than 50 pages about Splenda (sorry 89 if you include the Splenda product list!) and then repeats a load of articles about other things that are all available on the internet.

Wish I hadn't wasted my money.
0Comment|39 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 25, 2006
I am a very health concious person who pays close attention to what I ingest at all times. This book is absolutely horrible and filled with critical misunderstandings. I have never read anything so abviously trying to fit an agenda(Dr. Hulls book sales I think) in my entire life. Any science she actually quotes is taken out of context completely. She uses examples that quote results from experiments using more splenda in a small animal than a human will consume in a lifetime. From the information I read after this book, Splenda has completed 20 years worth of experiments and for the most part, except in HUGE quantities, it has been determined safe to use. Why and what she is trying to accomplish is a mystery to me, but I feel safer about eating Splenda after reading this junk. I suggest if you do read this book to at least look at other sources for your information so you get the whole picture. I would save my $20 though...
44 comments|67 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 7, 2005
Having spent some time reading such books at the Tipping Point and others, I started grabbing books with scientific claims (and have at least a passing interest in Splenda as I occasionally use products containing it) because I feel much of the science in these books tends to be snippets taking out of context. The only thing I can say is that after reading this book and looking for other materials on the safety of Splenda, is that the author obviously has done no actual research, rather she attempts to take other studies completely out of context to fit her agenda (which seems to be cashing in on the popularity of splenda - Ironic, don't you think?)

I think at the least Amazon should reference this book in an urban myths section, or perhaps file under "bunk science." All in all, I feel better about the cranberry juice made with splenda I drank while reading this book.
0Comment|38 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 15, 2014
this is the most informative book ever. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend it to everyone who isn't afraid to remove their rose colored glasses about this world we live in and see the greedy dollar giants that rule us. My granddaughter, 12 years old, is reading it and now reads labels like crazy to avoid aspartame. She is sharing with all her friends. I am so proud of them.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 4, 2014
After I had my successful weight loss surgery, I found this book extremely helpful! I feel it's very important to learn more about the potential dangers and/or negative impact artificial sweeteners can have on the body & mind,
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 29, 2015
book was in excellent condition. Quick delivery at a great price and interesting reading!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 13, 2008
CAVEAT EMPTOR. This book is not based on any credible science. "Dr." Hull is not a medical doctor. Just check her site by Googleing her name. But, like my daddy said, most americans will believe almost anything. So good luck "Dr." on making money the old fashion way: Dupe the ignorant (selling your stup1d books and your detox pills), just hope you can sleep at night. And if you have children, I hope you have the courage to tell them that you are a con artist.
0Comment|11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 3, 2005
Direct from the FDA Sucralose:

"Also known by its trade name, Splenda, sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar. After reviewing more than 110 animal and human safety studies conducted over 20 years, FDA approved it in 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in products such as baked goods, nonalcoholic beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy desserts, fruit juices, and gelatins. Earlier this year, FDA amended its regulation to allow sucralose as a general-purpose sweetener for all foods.

Sucralose tastes like sugar because it is made from table sugar. But it cannot be digested, so it adds no calories to food. Because sucralose is so much sweeter than sugar, it is bulked up with maltodextrin, a starchy powder, so it will measure more like sugar. It has good shelf life and doesn't degrade when exposed to heat. Numerous studies have shown that sucralose does not affect blood glucose levels, making it an option for diabetics."

This may mean little to many of you but we do pay the FDA to assess the risks from these foods. They have experts to review and evaluate all of these studies. They may not have a perfect record but ever since thalidomide was approved, they have a pretty conservative track record and have done a pretty good job of protecting public health.
33 comments|22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.